Omniscience and quantum mechanics

[Wiccan_Child]

How is it not the same? "I believe 'a' does not exist" and "I do not believe 'a' exists" are the same statement.

No, they're not. The former is an affirmation of a statement, the latter is the rejection of a statement. Since the conjugate of the latter is not the former, rejecting the latter is not the same as affirming the former .

Or, less confusingly: believing something exists means you think it exists. So, not believing something exists means you don't think it exists.

But, of course, just because you don't think it exists, doesn't mean you think it doesn't exist: you don't know if it does exist, and you don't know if it doesn't exist, so you neither affirm nor deny its existence.

Seems like unnecessary wiggling around; we already have the words "atheist" and "agnostic". But if someone wants to hold an "affirmation" rather than a belief, that's fine with me. And if an atheist wants to remain silent, that's even better. (just kidding )

Yes, we have those words, but there's never been a consensus on what they mean. At least, until now: it is only recently that self-professed atheists agree on what it means to be an 'atheist' (namely, an absence of belief in deities, which may or may not stem from a belief in their absence).

Agnostic quite literally means 'not knowing', so it makes sense that it should refer to one's epistemological position, not one's ontological position.

You're right, but that definition is just not useful, because by it, everyone is agnostic, from St. Paul to Richard Dawkins.

Not really. Some people are gnostic: they believe that we can know whether deities exist. Most people are agnostic, but that doesn't mean everyone is.
All Creationists are gnostic: they believe we can know that God exists, simply by way looking at the world around us.

But I asked what specific scientific findings support your conclusion.

Stellar cosmology, mainly. The fact that we're simply matter that's aggregated under its own gravity, while fascinating, doesn't exactly point to divine providence. It points to unthinking forces with no plan or forethought, which precludes an overarching 'purpose'.

That's true, my idea could describe deism or pantheism, but it couldn't describe the "mundane" in the sense of having to do with this world. Only something outside the natural chain of events can be "about" the natural chain of events, as thoughts are.

I can't engage in sex about thought, and I can't engage in eating food about thought, but I can engage in thoughts about having sex or about eating food or even in thoughts about thinking, as we're doing now.

Reason is a narrator in a story. You've probably read a book which included a first-person narration. The narrator could also be a part of the story - he or she could narrate, then step back into the story, then step out again to narrate. But, the two cannot be simultaneous - in order to narrate, the narrator must step outside the story. I believe this is what reason does, it steps outside of Nature, outside the natural chain of events of cause and effect.

I think reason helps us take what exists in nature and go one step back, into the realm of the abstract. We see trees, and reason tells us that there exists some 'tree-ness' that they have in common. We see apples and strawberries and traffic lights, and reason tells us there is some 'red-ness' that they have in common.
In that way, I agree with you: reason steps out of nature and lets us see the bigger picture.

So to re-word my original question: is there anything better than reason at 'stepping back'? What is better than reason at doing what reason does best?

Unfortunately, yes.

Then rejecting God makes my eternal life worse than if I accepted God?

(This might also explain the problem of evil. And it will continue after this life - residents of Hell may complain of God being evil, perhaps not understanding that that's the position they've chosen for Him.)

Perhaps, but that doesn't explain why the non-believer ends up suffering for eternity. It may very well be that the afterlife is a single place, and your beliefs determine how you see it. But why would disbelief in a particular religion cause you to suffer for eternity?

Just as you cannot get "this is true" out of nature, you cannot get any "I should" statement out of science.

Agreed, though science can tell us why we make 'should' statements in the first place.

They may be the same chemicals but in what way are they "other instances of my genes"? Everyone else's car may be made of the exact same materials as my car, but that in no way makes other people's cars "other instances of my car". (Except from a Divine perspective, since God claims ownership of all the materials.)

Actually, it does: if you own a Ford Mondeo Mk4, what you actually own is an instance of the Ford Mondeo Mk4 line of cars. There is no single car which is THE Ford Mondeo Mk4.
Likewise, your gene X is an instance of the gene X that (likely) exists in many other people. Thus, though your sacrifice is a slight detriment to the proliferation of gene X, it stands as an overall benefit: your sacrifice saves many more instances which would otherwise be lost.

So, to answer your question, they are other instances of your genes because they are the same. They are the same sequence of nucleotides. One part of your genome contains that sequence, and one part of someone else's genome contains the same sequence. Both parts contain instances of the same gene.

Actually, the barbaric act will always be the most useful act; in fact, in most instances, "barbaric" and "useful" will be synonyms.

Hardly. Human mothers eating their own babies is most certainly not useful, since it takes a lot of time to raise another human. If we had entire litters at a time, then perhaps humans would eat the runt of the litter, as other mammals do. But what is barbaric for us can be useful to other species, but not always!

Any idea to the contrary is injecting extra-natural morality and romance. What selection pressure would tell me to de-select myself, under any circumstance, and on what grounds would it do so? Blind nature has no interest in my genes survival. It has no "interests" at all.

Indeed, but it is easier to explain evolutionary concepts to those who don't understand them by anthropomorphising it. Obviously, there is no overarching intelligence in the process. It's natural selection. It's just dumb luck what the environment is, and what mutations the organism has. Either its mutations benefit it, and so get passed on, or they don't, and aren't.

What selection pressure would deselect you? Altruism: sacrificing yourself to ensure the survival of your offspring. Though you die, the gene which coded for altruism continues to exist, since you have offspring: they will have your altruism gene.

It doesn't matter how the gene proliferates itself, so long as it does. If the gene proliferates itself, then, quite obviously, there's going to be more and more instances of it as time goes by. The gene itself is just a sequence of chemicals, a self-sustaining pattern of nucleotides that code for certain proteins, enzymes, and even synaptic pathways. It's those proteins, enzymes, and synaptic pathways which can cause the host organism to do things which improve its odds of passing on the gene. This can be by direct procreation, or indirect self-sacrifice.

If his idea is just his personal preference, there's nothing to appeal to or about, really. You might as well urge him to like the same drink you do.

Which I do, quite often. But the point is that people can be swayed by a logical argument. If they realise that they're ethical stance really is just an arbitrary personal preference, they will often back down. Or, they try to find a more objective place to stand. Given the ultimate relativity of morality, this 'objective' place ends up being a point of mutual agreement: we both agree that, say, murder is wrong, and so he will work from there.

I'm sure I don't need to explain how ethical debates are carried out...

True. Then how can we be certain you're not arguing against a straw-man of quantum mechanics, rather than quantum mechanics itself? If I can have a misunderstanding of what space is, you could have a misunderstanding of what a particle is. In fact, I think I'm sure (with all due respect) that you do misunderstand what a particle is, because no one does fully understand.

Ah, now you're conflating the map with the valley. It is likely that quantum mechanics isn't perfect, but given its accuracy, it's pretty darn close. But the point isn't whether QM or GR are right, but rather whether your objection to them is justified. You criticised GR for having an illogical concept of space, but GR did not make the claim you accuse it of. That is what a straw-man is.

You sound like a man who's never seen ice or steam, and so says "everyone knows H20 has to be liquid, and it can't be otherwise". I want to balance fairness and accuracy, so all I can say is "you may be right, or maybe not".

If I ever say "Everyone knows...", you have permission to punch me!

I try to word my claims carefully so as to not preclude alternate possibilities, no matter how daft or unlikely I may find them. But the thing with logic is that there are no possibilities. I don't say "In my opinion, 1 + 1 = 2", because I can say "1 + 1 = 2" without any specifier. I reject the notion that logic could be wrong, if only because it doesn't make sense to talk about the wrongness of logic. So yes, I would say that logic cannot be otherwise. You want balance and fairness, but you're giving undue weight to opinions which cannot be true; why give them weight at all?

1. When you say science has shown that humans weren't designed, I don't think that's necessarily true even granting the Theory of Evolution. He very well could have designed through the TOE. Even if every aspect of our being, including our consciousness and mental processes could be attributed to evolution, you'd have no reason to conclude that God did not purpose every single aspect to be what it is.

On the contrary, such a scenario has theological issues: is God so limited that he must resort to such a lengthy process as evolution?

Remember, I'm drawing this from science. There is nothing in science which suggests that any non-human intelligence has influenced our development, be it divine, extra-terrestrial, or something more exotic.

It's obviously possible that God could have done it. It's also possible that God the world into existence 6000 years ago with all the appearance of age (fossils, coal, C[sup]14[/sup] deposits, the works). But this is not what science has concluded.

2. Even if it were true that we're not designed, that might be only true of human bodies. After all, Christianity is concerned with men's souls, and would be no different if we were quadripeds or if we looked like squid. One design, versus another design, versus no design, would not speak to the question of whether we had a purpose.

Honestly, I think you should re-reconsider, because your conclusion seems to be based on one or more red herrings.

I assure you, I've thought this through quite thoroughly. My main objection to the existence of 'purpose' is that, even if we had God-given souls, even if God has some Plan in which we all fulfil a particular role, I wouldn't consider that a purpose.
To sum it up more generally, I think it's right to say that I reject the sovereignty of God (assuming God exists and is the Creator of the Universe as per Christian theology).

For me, there was only one thing I really expected of God. I couldn't necessarily expect Him to be good or to be evil, to be nice or mean, to care or not care, or to even exist. The one thing I thought, was that if He did exist, He should reveal Himself, He should make Himself known. And I when I asked Him to make Himself known, He repeatedly pointed me to Christ.

I have heard the same story from Muslims and Jews. I have also heard the same story from atheists, though in their case, nothing became known to them.
This doesn't invalidate your personal experiences, of course, but it does beg the question why God would direct different people to different religions, or no religion at all.

And what prize does humanity win for staying alive? Seriously, if evolution led to science, and now science takes the baton from evolution, apparently we will soon have men in charge of nature. So what's the endgame?

Whatever we want it to be. Evolution doesn't have an endgame, since it isn't a physical thing that can go "This isn't useful now, but if we keep it, it'll be useful later". We humans, however, can do that, so we can come up with an endgame if we so wish. Which boils down to another fundamental question: what is there to live for? Why don't you just commit suicide right now?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There are several problems with your assertions.

First, God could hardly be classified as an hidden variable; God exists outside the universe, and thus cannot be a variable in physics which deal with what exists in the Universe. Since it would be an outside intervention through which God determined quantum events, it would be indistinguishable from true randomness even with all the constraints of the Copenhagen interpretation.

Which misses the point of Bell's theorem. It doesn't matter where the hidden variable lies, so long as it exists. Local hidden variables are incompatible with the mathematics, not just particular interpretations of it. The Bell tests disproved the existence of non-local hidden variables in quantum mechanics, regardless of how you interpret wavefunctions and measurements.

And God can indeed be classified as a hidden variable. What about him makes him anything but a variable?

Second, you are misrepresenting quantum theory. The limitation on hidden variables, even physical, belonging to the universe ones, from Bell's inequality, only applies to local hidden variables. If locality is given up, hidden variables are allowed. God is Omnipresent, and thus non-local by definition.

I think you've quite grasped the concept of locality. If God is a non-local variable, then his influence on one particle affects another, distant particle faster than the speed of light would allow. Since God's proposed influence doesn't do that, God is a local variable. For example, he tells every radioactive particle precisely when to decay, and a particle's decay has no effect on distant particles.

And third, the Copenhagen interpretation itself isn't as iron-clad as you present it; there is very recent work being done on a testable alternative.

I've never claimed it to be iron-clad. As the name suggests, it's an interpretation. But if new evidence refutes the Copenhagen interpretation, then I'll be the first to host a celebratory party. What a fantastic day for physics that would be!

I agree that having God determining personally the outcome of every quantum meaurement is the best solution for this, even if it might involve biting some philosophical bullets.

I never said it was the best solution. Indeed, it is grossly wasteful and preclude any useful application of quantum mechanics.

 

[Bono]

Which misses the point of Bell's theorem. It doesn't matter where the hidden variable lies, so long as it exists. Local hidden variables are incompatible with the mathematics, not just particular interpretations of it. The Bell tests disproved the existence of non-local hidden variables in quantum mechanics, regardless of how you interpret wavefunctions and measurements.

And God can indeed be classified as a hidden variable. What about him makes him anything but a variable?

I didn't say He wasn't a variable. I said that His action is not the type of variable that can be quantified by physics. Can you explain why the Bell theorem rules out divine action by an Omnipotent spirit from outside the universe?

You're simply making a category mistake. Divine action can't be quantified by physics.

I think you've quite grasped the concept of locality. If God is a non-local variable, then his influence on one particle affects another, distant particle faster than the speed of light would allow. Since God's proposed influence doesn't do that, God is a local variable. For example, he tells every radioactive particle precisely when to decay, and a particle's decay has no effect on distant particles.

We are talking about God determining at all times the results of every quantum measurement simultaneously. It is pointless to say whether a particle's decay has effect on distant ones, since the behavior of those distant ones is also being determined by God.

I've never claimed it to be iron-clad. As the name suggests, it's an interpretation. But if new evidence refutes the Copenhagen interpretation, then I'll be the first to host a celebratory party. What a fantastic day for physics that would be!

And yet, you're here using the Copenhagen interpretation as if it were an amazing defeater for Christianity.

I never said it was the best solution. Indeed, it is grossly wasteful and preclude any useful application of quantum mechanics.

I wasn't agreeing with you, I was agreeing with the poster above who independently suggested this idea.

It doesn't preclude anything, since God, save for actions of miraculour nature, which are by definition extraordinary, determines the results of quantum measurements in a regular, law-like way that accords with Quantum mechanics; He does this because it is better to have an ordered, reaonably predictable universe (and you can make predictions with quantum mechanics, not to mention that most quantum events aren't relevant for macro ones).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I didn't say He wasn't a variable. I said that His action is not the type of variable that can be quantified by physics. Can you explain why the Bell theorem rules out divine action by an Omnipotent spirit from outside the universe?

Because it rules out local hidden variables. God's influence constitutes a variable, albeit one unquantifiable by modern mathematics.

You're simply making a category mistake. Divine action can't be quantified by physics.

On the contrary, you are: you, like many Christians, refuse to acknowledge that the spiritual (prayer, God, etc) can be subject to scientific scrutiny. The idea that science could possibly say anything about God is so repugnant to you that you arbitrarily dismiss it.

We are talking about God determining at all times the results of every quantum measurement simultaneously. It is pointless to say whether a particle's decay has effect on distant ones, since the behavior of those distant ones is also being determined by God.

And such a scenario is incompatible with quantum mechanics, as was proven long ago by Bell's theorem.

And yet, you're here using the Copenhagen interpretation as if it were an amazing defeater for Christianity.

Where? The OP asks for a reconciliation between the indeterminism inherent in quantum mechanics, and the omniscience traditionally ascribed to God. I do not believe indeterminism is a matter of interpretation, but rather an inescapable consequence.

It doesn't preclude anything, since God, save for actions of miraculour nature, which are by definition extraordinary, determines the results of quantum measurements in a regular, law-like way that accords with Quantum mechanics;

Again, presenting us with the illusion of order and mathematical regularity.

Tell me: does God control when radioactive particles decay? Because if he does, he's directly responsible for every radiation poisoning. Indeed, he's responsible for every death by natural causes (avalanche, flood, earthquake, etc)! Do you really believe that?

EDIT: Ah, but your Calvinist. This could put the thread back on track.

He does this because it is better to have an ordered, reaonably predictable universe

Why?

(and you can make predictions with quantum mechanics,

Indeed you can, but your notion that 'God controls everything' precludes such predictions. It's not that our theories are accurately predicting events because they're accurately model reality; it's that God is simply moving the pieces as if our models are right. Why, then, should we trust anything we see? You set yourself up for Descartes' Demon, and have God as the demon, no less.

not to mention that most quantum events aren't relevant for macro ones.

Hardly. People die from radiation exposure, which is a direct consequence of quantum events. Imagine if a young Elizabeth I died due to exposure from some exotic substance as a child; this irrelevant quantum event suddenly becomes very relevant indeed.
The Sun would be two orders of magnitude cooler if things like quantum tunnelling didn't occur, thereby rendering the Earth uninhabitable (or, at least, extremely different).
I think you underestimate the macroscopic phenomena cause by quantum mechanical events.

And besides, assuming quantum mechanics is true, all events are quantum events.

 

[Bono]

Because it rules out local hidden variables. God's influence constitutes a variable, albeit one unquantifiable by modern mathematics.

On the contrary, you are: you, like many Christians, refuse to acknowledge that the spiritual (prayer, God, etc) can be subject to scientific scrutiny. The idea that science could possibly say anything about God is so repugnant to you that you arbitrarily dismiss it.

It is not a physical factor. That is the same thing as saying physics rules out Moses parting the red sea; it begs the question against supernatural events.

Philoopher Nicholas Saunders reviews attempts at explaining divine action through quantum mechanics (this is not the same issue we've been arguing here, but it is closely related; they argue that God intervenes only in some quantum events, not all as I've been arguing) in article Does God Cheat at Dice? Divine Action and Quantum Possibilities. He analyzes ways God could do that according to their compatibility with the Copenhagen interpretation, and referring to the possibility that God determines outcomes, he says:

" 4. God Controls the Outcome of Measurement. Of course, one solution to the above problem is to claim that God ignores the probabilities predicted by orthodox quantum mechanics and simply controls the outcomes of particular measurements. This does not present us with any specific problems. However, we are again forced to accept a certain philosophical position."

He goes on to reject this view based on what he sees as philosophical problems, but clearly states that there aren't scientific problems with it. Since as a Calvinist I have no libertarian preconceptions, and also don't share neo-theist concerns about divine intervention, those philosophical concerns don't move me much and I prefer to bite that bullet than to state there are events over which God has no control.

And such a scenario is incompatible with quantum mechanics, as was proven long ago by Bell's theorem.

If God determines the outcomes of all quantum events simultaneously, there are links between distant particles; there is a faster than light causation as the same agent, God, is causing everyone of those events even light years apart. Information is exchanged about particle states, as God knows all simultaneously. This is no different than a pilot wave determining results of separate measurements, and this IS allowed by Bell's theorem.

Where? The OP asks for a reconciliation between the indeterminism inherent in quantum mechanics, and the omniscience traditionally ascribed to God. I do not believe indeterminism is a matter of interpretation, but rather an inescapable consequence.

Determinism is a feature of the pilot wave/Bohmian interpretation, which Antony Valentini was picking up in the article I linked.

Again, presenting us with the illusion of order and mathematical regularity. You just don't like its source.

How is it an illusion? There is regularity.

Tell me: does God control when radioactive particles decay? Because if he does, he's directly responsible for every radiation poisoning. Indeed, he's responsible for every death by natural causes (avalanche, flood, earthquake, etc)! Do you really believe that?

EDIT: Ah, but your Calvinist. This could put the thread back on track.

I think you answered your own question. In fact, preserving theological determinism is my motivation in positing this view. If all you're worried about is omniscience, there is a much simpler solution to the problem. God stands outside of time and is able to look at the whole temporal 4th dimension in a glance, the way we can look at the regular 3 dimensions. Thus, he is able to see what the results of quantum measurements will be even if they are unknown at a particular point in time.

Why?

There is a lot of work out there about God upholding regularity in the physical universe, but that is out of the scope of this thread.

Indeed you can, but your notion that 'God controls everything' precludes such predictions. It's not that our theories are accurately predicting events because they're accurately model reality; it's that God is simply moving the pieces as if our models are right. Why, then, should we trust anything we see? You set yourself up for Descartes' Demon, and have God as the demon, no less.

That begs the question of realism in philosophy of science, and imo is out of the scope of this thread. Stephen Hawking is also not a realist, at least when it comes to quantum mechanics, so it's not like this is some far out proposition.

Hardly. People die from radiation exposure, which is a direct consequence of quantum events. Imagine if a young Elizabeth I died due to exposure from some exotic substance as a child; this irrelevant quantum event suddenly becomes very relevant indeed.
The Sun would be two orders of magnitude cooler if things like quantum tunnelling didn't occur, thereby rendering the Earth uninhabitable (or, at least, extremely different).
I think you underestimate the macroscopic phenomena cause by quantum mechanical events.

And besides, assuming quantum mechanics is true, all events are quantum events.

I said most, not all.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It is not a physical factor. That is the same thing as saying physics rules out Moses parting the red sea; it begs the question against supernatural events.

The problem with 'supernatural' events is that they trump all known laws and conventions. They render any discussion pointless, since you can just hand-wave away any contradictory evidence, theory, and logic, by saying it's all 'supernatural'.

If God determines the outcomes of all quantum events simultaneously, there are links between distant particles; there is a faster than light causation as the same agent, God, is causing everyone of those events even light years apart.

Nope: just because A causes B and C, doesn't mean there's a causal relationship between B and C.

Information is exchanged about particle states, as God knows all simultaneously. This is no different than a pilot wave determining results of separate measurements, and this IS allowed by Bell's theorem.

I disagree that this is the same as the Bohm interpretation.

Determinism is a feature of the pilot wave/Bohmian interpretation, which Antony Valentini was picking up in the article I linked.

I cannot view the article, so I won't comment.

How is it an illusion? There is regularity.

Only because God moves his toys about in that way. If a child plays with his toys, there may be some internal consistency; the people move like people, the planes move like planes, etc. But this regularity is an illusion: they behave that way because of the whim of the child, not because that's the actual underlying mechanics of the universe.

I think you answered your own question. In fact, preserving theological determinism is my motivation in positing this view. If all you're worried about is omniscience, there is a much simpler solution to the problem. God stands outside of time and is able to look at the whole temporal 4th dimension in a glance, the way we can look at the regular 3 dimensions. Thus, he is able to see what the results of quantum measurements will be even if they are unknown at a particular point in time.

Which is incompatible with indeterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics. Hence, the dilemma.

That begs the question of realism in philosophy of science, and imo is out of the scope of this thread. Stephen Hawking is also not a realist, at least when it comes to quantum mechanics, so it's not like this is some far out proposition.

Perhaps, but the consensus nonetheless falls on scientific realism.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Perhaps, but the consensus nonetheless falls on scientific realism.

A consensus of the blind can lead only to darkness!

Only the Creator of all that science attempts to "study" can deliniate and demarcate the light of Truth from the darkness of educated ignorance.

"The Message that points to Christ on the Cross seems like sheer silliness to those hellbent on destruction, but for those on the way of salvation it makes perfect sense. This the the way God works, and most powerfully as it turns out. It's written, 'I'll turn conventional wisdom on its head, I'll expose so-called "experts" as crackpots.'

"So where can you find someone truly wise, truly educated, truly intelligent in this day and age? Hasn't God exposed it all as pretentious nonsense? Since the world in all its fancy wisdom never had a clue when it came to knowing God, God in His wisdom took delight in using what the world considered dumb--preaching, of all things!--to bring those who trust Him into the way of salvation.

"While Jews clamor for miraculous demonstrations and Greeks go in for philosophical "wisdom", we go right on proclaiming Christ, the Crucified. Jews treat this like an anti-miracle--and Greeks pass it off as absurd. But to us who are personally called by God Himself--both Jews and Greeks--Christ is God's ultimate miracle and wisdom all wrapped up in one. Human wisdom is so tinny, so impotent, next to the seeming absurdity of God. Human strength can't begin to compete with God's 'weakness.' "(I Corinthians 1:18-21)

WISE UP! ​

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[Bono]

The problem with 'supernatural' events is that they trump all known laws and conventions. They render any discussion pointless, since you can just hand-wave away any contradictory evidence, theory, and logic, by saying it's all 'supernatural'.

Which is only a problem if you're already committed to materialism to begin with. Nowhere are Christians commanded to have a materialist explanation for everything.

That said, you haven't addressed by quote. Good luck trying to find something stating God can't do that.

Nope: just because A causes B and C, doesn't mean there's a causal relationship between B and C.



I disagree that this is the same as the Bohm interpretation.

In the Bohm interpretation, it is the pilot wave that determines the results of the several measurements of particles far apart, not the particles themselves.

Only because God moves his toys about in that way. If a child plays with his toys, there may be some internal consistency; the people move like people, the planes move like planes, etc. But this regularity is an illusion: they behave that way because of the whim of the child, not because that's the actual underlying mechanics of the universe.

God is not a Child. He can be trusted to sustain the regularity. I'm glad you make that comparison. When the vituperations against God start, it's a sign I'm doing something right.

Which is incompatible with indeterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics. Hence, the dilemma.

About as incompatible as saying that someone time travelling one year to the future would still be unable to determine the results of a quantum measurement performed one second after he left. When God looks at the universe from outside of time, He sees the past and the future at one glance. What you're saying pressupposes something called the a-theory of time, where there is a definite moment you can call present for everyone, and the past and the future don't have any concrete existence. Using the b theory of time, which is the majority view among philosophers of time, time is a block, similar to the physical dimensions we can perceive, and the past, present and future are all relative to our own location in time, and God, being outside time, can perceive them all simultaneously.

Perhaps, but the consensus nonetheless falls on scientific realism.

Really? Last time I checked, Thoma Kuhn had a sizable following. There may be a majority of realists, but that's not what a consensus is.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Which is only a problem if you're already committed to materialism to begin with. Nowhere are Christians commanded to have a materialist explanation for everything.

It doesn't have anything to do with materialism. I'm not rejecting the possibility of a 'supernatural' event, I'm just saying that believing in a 'supernatural' factor in a given event renders and discussion to the contrary impossible.

That said, you haven't addressed by quote. Good luck trying to find something stating God can't do that.

I saw nothing worthy of comment in the quote. You can find scientists comment for and against every aspect of theology.

In the Bohm interpretation, it is the pilot wave that determines the results of the several measurements of particles far apart, not the particles themselves.

The pilot wave is unique to each particle: it is a real wave that guides a real particle. It is not an overarching device that affects many distant particles at once.

God is not a Child.

It was an analogy. Try not to take things too literally.

He can be trusted to sustain the regularity.

Why? Because he's done so thus far?

I'm glad you make that comparison. When the vituperations against God start, it's a sign I'm doing something right.

My analogy wasn't to criticise God, nor was it even to compare God to a child. I was using an analogy to explain to you why I think that such regularity is an illusion.

And please, don't wrap yourself up in a persecution complex. It's just embarrassing..

About as incompatible as saying that someone time travelling one year to the future would still be unable to determine the results of a quantum measurement performed one second after he left. When God looks at the universe from outside of time, He sees the past and the future at one glance. What you're saying pressupposes something called the a-theory of time, where there is a definite moment you can call present for everyone, and the past and the future don't have any concrete existence. Using the b theory of time, which is the majority view among philosophers of time, time is a block, similar to the physical dimensions we can perceive, and the past, present and future are all relative to our own location in time, and God, being outside time, can perceive them all simultaneously.

Obviously I'm presupposing A-time: B-time is deterministic, so is naturally incompatible with quantum mechanical indeterminism.

Really? Last time I checked, Thoma Kuhn had a sizable following.

Good for him.

There may be a majority of realists, but that's not what a consensus is.

Actually, that's exactly what it is. A consensus is reached when the vast majority (if not totality) of members are in agreement. Since the vast majority of scientists are scientific realists, a consensus has been reached. But we're drifting off-topic.

 

[Chesterton]

No, they're not. The former is an affirmation of a statement, the latter is the rejection of a statement. Since the conjugate of the latter is not the former, rejecting the latter is not the same as affirming the former .

Or, less confusingly: believing something exists means you think it exists. So, not believing something exists means you don't think it exists.

But, of course, just because you don't think it exists, doesn't mean you think it doesn't exist: you don't know if it does exist, and you don't know if it doesn't exist, so you neither affirm nor deny its existence.

Yes, we have those words, but there's never been a consensus on what they mean. At least, until now: it is only recently that self-professed atheists agree on what it means to be an 'atheist' (namely, an absence of belief in deities, which may or may not stem from a belief in their absence).

These words describe what men believe, they're not affirmations of true/false statements. The words theist, atheist and agnostic are just shortcuts for simple ideas: I believe there's a God, I believe there's not a God, and I don't know whether to believe there's a God. There's no reason to invent convoluted definitions except as debate tactics.

Stellar cosmology, mainly. The fact that we're simply matter that's aggregated under its own gravity, while fascinating, doesn't exactly point to divine providence. It points to unthinking forces with no plan or forethought, which precludes an overarching 'purpose'.

Again, what would point to divine providence? If you know certainly what doesn't point to it, you must have some idea of what does point to it?

I think reason helps us take what exists in nature and go one step back, into the realm of the abstract. We see trees, and reason tells us that there exists some 'tree-ness' that they have in common. We see apples and strawberries and traffic lights, and reason tells us there is some 'red-ness' that they have in common.
In that way, I agree with you: reason steps out of nature and lets us see the bigger picture.

So to re-word my original question: is there anything better than reason at 'stepping back'? What is better than reason at doing what reason does best?

A whole man, including his reason, is better than just a man's reason.

Then rejecting God makes my eternal life worse than if I accepted God?

Yes, I believe so.

Perhaps, but that doesn't explain why the non-believer ends up suffering for eternity. It may very well be that the afterlife is a single place, and your beliefs determine how you see it. But why would disbelief in a particular religion cause you to suffer for eternity?

It's not disbelief in a particular religion, but rather having the wrong relationship with God. Christianity is a description of the right relationship.

Agreed, though science can tell us why we make 'should' statements in the first place.

But when science tries to tell us why, it just offers a conundrum. A "should" statement can only be made in conjunction with purpose, yet science says there is no purpose. So science says the mental feeling of "should" or "should not" is an illusion. Evolutionary morality says "men felt they should or shouldn't do some things, but the reality is there is nothing men should or shouldn't do". Science's answer is based on an assumption which it simultaneously denies.

Actually, it does: if you own a Ford Mondeo Mk4, what you actually own is an instance of the Ford Mondeo Mk4 line of cars. There is no single car which is THE Ford Mondeo Mk4.
Likewise, your gene X is an instance of the gene X that (likely) exists in many other people. Thus, though your sacrifice is a slight detriment to the proliferation of gene X, it stands as an overall benefit: your sacrifice saves many more instances which would otherwise be lost.

So, to answer your question, they are other instances of your genes because they are the same. They are the same sequence of nucleotides. One part of your genome contains that sequence, and one part of someone else's genome contains the same sequence. Both parts contain instances of the same gene.

So how do my genes know that other genes are the same? And why would they care? Aren't my genes smart enough to figure out that other instances of my genes are ultimately competing with my genes for resources or sexual mates or jobs that I need? My genes would benefit from having fewer other instances of my genes, not more. Moral genes are stupid genes.

Hardly. Human mothers eating their own babies is most certainly not useful, since it takes a lot of time to raise another human. If we had entire litters at a time, then perhaps humans would eat the runt of the litter, as other mammals do. But what is barbaric for us can be useful to other species, but not always!

But you keep assuming that "raising another human" is a purpose, while at the same time claiming there's no purpose. What's going on?

Indeed, but it is easier to explain evolutionary concepts to those who don't understand them by anthropomorphising it. Obviously, there is no overarching intelligence in the process. It's natural selection. It's just dumb luck what the environment is, and what mutations the organism has. Either its mutations benefit it, and so get passed on, or they don't, and aren't.

What selection pressure would deselect you? Altruism: sacrificing yourself to ensure the survival of your offspring. Though you die, the gene which coded for altruism continues to exist, since you have offspring: they will have your altruism gene.

It doesn't matter how the gene proliferates itself, so long as it does. If the gene proliferates itself, then, quite obviously, there's going to be more and more instances of it as time goes by. The gene itself is just a sequence of chemicals, a self-sustaining pattern of nucleotides that code for certain proteins, enzymes, and even synaptic pathways. It's those proteins, enzymes, and synaptic pathways which can cause the host organism to do things which improve its odds of passing on the gene. This can be by direct procreation, or indirect self-sacrifice.

How do these chemicals cause a host organism with free will to do things? See I think you really must be a determinist.

And again I see the scientific mind engaged in romance. You may not believe in knights in shining armor doing chivalrous deeds to save damsels, but you have no trouble with the idea of little groups of mindless chemicals doing the same. What evidence is there for the idea that chemicals want to make and continue life?

Which I do, quite often. But the point is that people can be swayed by a logical argument. If they realise that they're ethical stance really is just an arbitrary personal preference, they will often back down. Or, they try to find a more objective place to stand. Given the ultimate relativity of morality, this 'objective' place ends up being a point of mutual agreement: we both agree that, say, murder is wrong, and so he will work from there.

I'm sure I don't need to explain how ethical debates are carried out...

You say you might try and show that the other man's ethical stance is arbitrary, but your starting point is the idea that all moral ideas are arbitrary. Ethical debates are always carried out based on the assumption that some things are really right and some things are really wrong. There'd be nothing to debate otherwise.

Ah, now you're conflating the map with the valley. It is likely that quantum mechanics isn't perfect, but given its accuracy, it's pretty darn close. But the point isn't whether QM or GR are right, but rather whether your objection to them is justified. You criticised GR for having an illogical concept of space, but GR did not make the claim you accuse it of. That is what a straw-man is.

Right, but we can tell whether my objection is justified (it's not) because we know enough of what GR says about space. We can't tell if your objection to God's omniscience based on QM is justified because we don't know enough of what QM has to say about particles. QM is solidly verified, but what it is actually saying or not saying about reality is open to enough interpretation to fill volumes.

If I ever say "Everyone knows...", you have permission to punch me!

I try to word my claims carefully so as to not preclude alternate possibilities, no matter how daft or unlikely I may find them. But the thing with logic is that there are no possibilities. I don't say "In my opinion, 1 + 1 = 2", because I can say "1 + 1 = 2" without any specifier. I reject the notion that logic could be wrong, if only because it doesn't make sense to talk about the wrongness of logic. So yes, I would say that logic cannot be otherwise. You want balance and fairness, but you're giving undue weight to opinions which cannot be true; why give them weight at all?

You seem to be engaged in "contemporary bias"; your level of knowledge may be state-of-the-art, but that doesn't mean it's true just because it happens to exist while you are alive. Can you guarantee to me that 2,000 years from now, there won't be small children sitting in an elementary math class, giggling when they hear that psuedo-science such as Newton and Einstein and QM was actually believed by their ancestors to be true?

As to the OP:

1. QM may not be completely true and accurate; only time will tell.

2. Even if true and accurate as currently understood, QM is not a complete explanation of fundamental reality. If true, it makes reality less clear, not more clear. It's merely a deeper peek inside the funhouse.

3. Whether true or not, no theory of the physical world can be used against the Christian God, because God is the inventor of the physical world. Whatever science can possibly come up with, "Goddidit" will always be a possible answer, regardless of how much you dislike hearing "Goddidit".

On the contrary, such a scenario has theological issues: is God so limited that he must resort to such a lengthy process as evolution?

Remember, I'm drawing this from science. There is nothing in science which suggests that any non-human intelligence has influenced our development, be it divine, extra-terrestrial, or something more exotic.

It's obviously possible that God could have done it. It's also possible that God the world into existence 6000 years ago with all the appearance of age (fossils, coal, C[sup]14[/sup] deposits, the works). But this is not what science has concluded.

Christianity is not science, and no, there's no theological issue there. How God did something tells us nothing of how else He could have done the same thing. And just because evolution appears lengthy to your mind doesn't mean it's lengthy. Likewise, if the universe appears big to you that doesn't mean it's big. And if you admit that "it's obviously possible that God could have done it" then you're removing support for your conclusion.

I assure you, I've thought this through quite thoroughly. My main objection to the existence of 'purpose' is that, even if we had God-given souls, even if God has some Plan in which we all fulfil a particular role, I wouldn't consider that a purpose.
To sum it up more generally, I think it's right to say that I reject the sovereignty of God (assuming God exists and is the Creator of the Universe as per Christian theology).

I've heard that before from atheists on here. I don't really understand it. It seems self-evident or axiomatic to me that if there's a Creator, then creatures were probably created for some purpose. And if there's some purpose, that purpose might be of interest to me, the creature. In fact, a creature understanding why it's created might be the very definition of "wisdom". Can you elaborate on why you think that's not so?

I have heard the same story from Muslims and Jews. I have also heard the same story from atheists, though in their case, nothing became known to them.
This doesn't invalidate your personal experiences, of course, but it does beg the question why God would direct different people to different religions, or no religion at all.

I've never heard the same story from Muslims or Jews, but I have heard atheists who say they asked and nothing became known. But I myself asked for many years before something became known. So maybe it does beg that question, but the question doesn't invalidate my experience, therefore the question is not determinative. Any thoughts on an answer to the question?

Whatever we want it to be. Evolution doesn't have an endgame, since it isn't a physical thing that can go "This isn't useful now, but if we keep it, it'll be useful later". We humans, however, can do that, so we can come up with an endgame if we so wish.

The usurping of God's role, the defiance of God, and the replacement of God, are recurring themes in Christian thought: Lucifer's revolt in Heaven, the garden of Eden, the Tower of Babel, the world system in the Book of Revelation, etc. So you're probably right, we will continue to try and make life whatever we want it to be, but it hasn't worked out well so far. It's not like everybody's happy nowadays.

Which boils down to another fundamental question: what is there to live for? Why don't you just commit suicide right now?

Easy question for a theist - life is a gift, an experience, a challenge and an exercise, and God wants us to live it. What's your answer as to why not commit suicide?
--------------

The idea that science could possibly say anything about God is so repugnant to you that you arbitrarily dismiss it.

The problem with 'supernatural' events is that they trump all known laws and conventions. They render any discussion pointless...

I'm not rejecting the possibility of a 'supernatural' event, I'm just saying that believing in a 'supernatural' factor in a given event renders and discussion to the contrary impossible.

I plucked the above statements out because they seem telling about you, but you can tell me if I'm wrong. The idea that science could say something about God is not repugnant to theists - for proof look at the history of European and even Islamic science - trying to understanding the mind of God was an impetus for science; that was explicitly stated. But the converse seems repugnant to you - the idea that science can't say everything about God. Is it discomforting for you to consider that some things may be undiscussable [sic?]; that something (the supernatural) may be bigger than a human mind can handle?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

These words describe what men believe, they're not affirmations of true/false statements. The words theist, atheist and agnostic are just shortcuts for simple ideas: I believe there's a God, I believe there's not a God, and I don't know whether to believe there's a God. There's no reason to invent convoluted definitions except as debate tactics.

Beliefs are affirmations of the truth of statements. What are they if not that?
You accuse me of sophistry, but I say it is you who is obfuscating things: you use your personal definitions as if they are THE definitions, as if they cover any and all beliefs on theology. At the very least, you're conflating ontological belief with epistemological belief: agnostics believe that we can't know whether gods exist, which is unrelated to whether they actually believe they exist. You can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.

Again, what would point to divine providence? If you know certainly what doesn't point to it, you must have some idea of what does point to it?

I've already given examples, but I'll give some more. A human species which was specially created, poofed out of existence as is ~6000 years ago. Or an ordered universe teeming with life on every level, instead of being precariously balanced on the thin skin of a single planet. A universe where God makes his existence obvious and undeniable (Romans 1:20 springs to mind), instead of remaining stubbornly hidden.
There are many ways in which God could make himself known. There are many ways in which the universe could show hallmarks of a Creator.

Yes, I believe so.

Why?

It's not disbelief in a particular religion, but rather having the wrong relationship with God. Christianity is a description of the right relationship.

Which is just another way of saying that Christianity is the right religion. If that religion professes itself as a relationship with God, as servitude to God's will, as freedom from desire, or whatever, it's still a religion.

Anyway, the point is that it doesn't explain why the non-believer must suffer. So what if he doesn't have the right relationship with God?

But when science tries to tell us why, it just offers a conundrum. A "should" statement can only be made in conjunction with purpose, yet science says there is no purpose. So science says the mental feeling of "should" or "should not" is an illusion. Evolutionary morality says "men felt they should or shouldn't do some things, but the reality is there is nothing men should or shouldn't do". Science's answer is based on an assumption which it simultaneously denies.

I think you're tying yourself in knots. First, science tells us why we make 'should' statements. It doesn't say that 'should' statements are inherently an illusion, or that there is no reality to morality. I mean, it's screamingly obvious to me that there is no objective morality, that 'should' statements are illusory; but that isn't a conclusion that the scientific method can make.

Second, the evolutionary explanation for morality just tells us how morality came to be. It doesn't say we should throw it out the window. It doesn't say we 'should' do anything at all.

Science tells us what is, not what ought to be.

So how do my genes know that other genes are the same? And why would they care? Aren't my genes smart enough to figure out that other instances of my genes are ultimately competing with my genes for resources or sexual mates or jobs that I need? My genes would benefit from having fewer other instances of my genes, not more. Moral genes are stupid genes.

Genes are just chemicals. They're quite literally as stupid as a rock. And I'm not sure where you got the idea that genes benefit from having fewer instances of themselves. The more there are of them, the more likely that one of their hosts will reproduce and pass them on.

Genes don't konw about other genes, nor do they care about them. They're chemicals. They're apparent selfishness is an anthropomorphisation of the population dynamics that emerges when you have a stable population of replicators whose characteristics are almost entirely determined by mutating instructions. They're apparent desire to preserve and proliferate instances of themselves arises from the fact that, if they didn't, they wouldn't proliferate themselves. Only those genes which code for their own survival are the ones that actually survive (with a few added caveats thrown in).

But you keep assuming that "raising another human" is a purpose, while at the same time claiming there's no purpose. What's going on?

I never said it was the purpose. I'm saying that, by raising another human, the genes live on. Those whose code makes this process more likely to be successful are coding for the proliferation of other instances of themselves: after all, offspring share the genetic code of their parents. Thus, those genes which just so happen to improve the odds of reproduction (or, more generally, genetic proliferation) are the ones which continue to be extant in the population. Those which are detrimental are usually gradually selected out, since fewer and fewer individuals in the population have the detrimental gene.

There is no purpose to it, but, once again, it helps to use anthropomorphisms to explain things.

How do these chemicals cause a host organism with free will to do things?

You'd be surprised how little control we have over our actions and emotions, our desires and urges. Hunger and libido are two of the most powerful and hard-to-overcome urges we have. Try not eating for as long as possible, and see how long you can last before your 'free will' is co-opted by your body's self-preservation instincts.

I'm not a big believer in free will. We may have some concious decision, but rarely is it uninfluenced by our bodies surging hormones.

And again I see the scientific mind engaged in romance. You may not believe in knights in shining armor doing chivalrous deeds to save damsels, but you have no trouble with the idea of little groups of mindless chemicals doing the same. What evidence is there for the idea that chemicals want to make and continue life?

None. You're taking metaphor too literally - something you admonished Creationists for a few posts back .

You say you might try and show that the other man's ethical stance is arbitrary, but your starting point is the idea that all moral ideas are arbitrary. Ethical debates are always carried out based on the assumption that some things are really right and some things are really wrong. There'd be nothing to debate otherwise.

If that were true, you'd never see a moral relativist debate anything. The relativist acknowledges the arbitrariness of it all, but nonetheless believes in a particular moral code, and consider that code to be best. I am a relativist, but I nonetheless believe (and encourage others to believe) that harm is wrong. That willingly and knowingly causing pain to any being so capable, is wrong. The basic premise of my code ("Infringement of free will is immoral") is as arbitrary as yours, but that doesn't mean I can't hold it, or that I can't explain and espouse it to others.

And I certainly won't hesitate to call someone else 'immoral' if they advocate torture or the like.

Right, but we can tell whether my objection is justified (it's not) because we know enough of what GR says about space. We can't tell if your objection to God's omniscience based on QM is justified because we don't know enough of what QM has to say about particles. QM is solidly verified, but what it is actually saying or not saying about reality is open to enough interpretation to fill volumes.

Yes and no. Yes in that one's interpretation of quantum mechanical terms influences how you see reality (just what is the wavefunction, anyway?). No in that there are some quantum mechanical results that are true regardless of how you interpret them (the uncertainty principles, QM 'spin', tunnelling, entanglement, etc). I try to address the 'certain' aspects of QM, since they are the ones we can all agree on.

You seem to be engaged in "contemporary bias"; your level of knowledge may be state-of-the-art, but that doesn't mean it's true just because it happens to exist while you are alive. Can you guarantee to me that 2,000 years from now, there won't be small children sitting in an elementary math class, giggling when they hear that psuedo-science such as Newton and Einstein and QM was actually believed by their ancestors to be true?

I am well aware of this. Our current theories and models are almost certainly false, at least in the minutiae.

As to the OP:

1. QM may not be completely true and accurate; only time will tell.

Perhaps, but the question addresses certain aspects of QM. Its truth is neither here nor there, though rejecting it on the grounds that it might possibly be supplanted by a future theory is a little presumptuous.

2. Even if true and accurate as currently understood, QM is not a complete explanation of fundamental reality. If true, it makes reality less clear, not more clear. It's merely a deeper peek inside the funhouse.

3. Whether true or not, no theory of the physical world can be used against the Christian God, because God is the inventor of the physical world. Whatever science can possibly come up with, "Goddidit" will always be a possible answer, regardless of how much you dislike hearing "Goddidit".

On the contrary, even "Goddidit" cannot explain away a logical paradox.

Christianity is not science, and no, there's no theological issue there. How God did something tells us nothing of how else He could have done the same thing. And just because evolution appears lengthy to your mind doesn't mean it's lengthy. Likewise, if the universe appears big to you that doesn't mean it's big. And if you admit that "it's obviously possible that God could have done it" then you're removing support for your conclusion.

Acknowledging alternate possibilities is a hallmark of science, not an admission of defeat. It is the politician who sees honesty as a threat, who sees a change in ideas and beliefs as a weakness. I acknowledge that God may have done it in a particularly convoluted way, but that doesn't change the facts one iota.

I've heard that before from atheists on here. I don't really understand it. It seems self-evident or axiomatic to me that if there's a Creator, then creatures were probably created for some purpose. And if there's some purpose, that purpose might be of interest to me, the creature. In fact, a creature understanding why it's created might be the very definition of "wisdom". Can you elaborate on why you think that's not so?

It probably boils down to semantics. What you consider 'purpose' is not what I consider 'purpose'... though I have to admit, I like the definition that purpose is 'the intent for which we were made'. It presupposes a Maker, but still, it's more coherent than most attempted definitions.

That said, I disagree that one's purpose is derived from the intent of those who made us. If my parents bore a child to carry on their family business, does that mean my purpose in life is to do just that? Purpose usually means some grand event that your life builds up to; toppling an evil regime, solving some intractable problem, or some such. I guess it's that which I disbelieve in.

I also reject the idea that, just because God created the universe, he gets to decide what is Good and what is Evil. Who's he to say homosexuality is a sin?

I've never heard the same story from Muslims or Jews, but I have heard atheists who say they asked and nothing became known. But I myself asked for many years before something became known. So maybe it does beg that question, but the question doesn't invalidate my experience, therefore the question is not determinative. Any thoughts on an answer to the question?

I think you could guess my thoughts: it shows religion to be a cultural and neurological phenomenon, not one derived from divine intervention. That no one has ever discovered Christianity or Islam or any other religion without first being exposed to it is telling.

The usurping of God's role, the defiance of God, and the replacement of God, are recurring themes in Christian thought: Lucifer's revolt in Heaven, the garden of Eden, the Tower of Babel, the world system in the Book of Revelation, etc. So you're probably right, we will continue to try and make life whatever we want it to be, but it hasn't worked out well so far. It's not like everybody's happy nowadays.

I'd wager that we're more happy now than we've ever been.

Easy question for a theist - life is a gift, an experience, a challenge and an exercise, and God wants us to live it. What's your answer as to why not commit suicide?

Two reasons. First, I enjoy life too much. Second, my neuroendocrinology makes it a repugnant option, both because I don't want to hurt those near to me, and because my biology has a habit of yelling, "Oi, don't be stupid".

I plucked the above statements out because they seem telling about you, but you can tell me if I'm wrong. The idea that science could say something about God is not repugnant to theists - for proof look at the history of European and even Islamic science - trying to understanding the mind of God was an impetus for science; that was explicitly stated. But the converse seems repugnant to you - the idea that science can't say everything about God. Is it discomforting for you to consider that some things may be undiscussable [sic?]; that something (the supernatural) may be bigger than a human mind can handle?

Ah, no. The undiscussability (?) of "Goddidit" explanations is not because we shouldn't - or can't - talk about them. It's because every attempt to talk about them is rebutted by the same answer: "Goddidit".

"Noah's Flood couldn't have happened, because..."
"Goddidit."
"OK, but how did the anim-"
"Goddidit."
"But that doesn't expl-"
"Goddidit"

You can't discuss it because it's the ultimate explanation: it explains everything, whilst simultaneously telling us nothing.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Beliefs are affirmations of the truth of statements.
The undiscussability (?) of "Goddidit" explanations is not because we shouldn't - or can't - talk about them. It's because every attempt to talk about them is rebutted by the same answer: "Goddidit".

"Noah's Flood couldn't have happened, because..."
"Goddidit."
"OK, but how did the anim-"
"Goddidit."
"But that doesn't expl-"
"Goddidit"
You can't discuss it because it's the ultimate explanation: it explains everything, whilst simultaneously telling us nothing.

MY FRIEND,

The overarching TRUTH that "Goddidit" does indeed explain EVERYTHING and simultaneously tells you EVERYTHING you need to know about reality vis-a-vis the Universe around you and your position vis-a-vis its Creator.

What more do you need? God has been good to you--PRAISE HIM!

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST
ephraim

 

[Wiccan_Child]

MY FRIEND,

The overarching TRUTH that "Goddidit" does indeed explain EVERYTHING and simultaneously tells you EVERYTHING you need to know about reality vis-a-vis the Universe around you and your position vis-a-vis its Creator.

What more do you need? God has been good to you--PRAISE HIM!

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST
ephraim

As I said to Chesterton, "Goddidit", while a succinct explanation in itself, doesn't actually do anything more than "Ooh, lightning, Thor must be angry!".

 

[ephraimanesti]

As I said to Chesterton, "Goddidit", while a succinct explanation in itself, doesn't actually do anything more than "Ooh, lightning, Thor must be angry!".

MY BROTHER,

Well, yes, of course. However, for a Christian "Goddidit" is much more than an abstract metaphor--it is a "succinct explanation" of ALL Truth. The fact that atheists are unable or unwilling to accept this reality does not change the absolute reality of the statement one whit.

"Goddidit" can neither be proved or disproved by the so-called "scientific method" so loved and worshipped by atheists for the very reason that science, by its nature of being able to deal only with materialities, can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God and therefore a refusal to look beyond what science is capable of dealing with precludes--for those who desperately wish it so--the bother of having to deal with God's existence and the ramifications and responsibilities thereof. This, of course, is the ultimate misuse of science . . . but there it is.

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[Chesterton]

Beliefs are affirmations of the truth of statements. What are they if not that?
You accuse me of sophistry, but I say it is you who is obfuscating things: you use your personal definitions as if they are THE definitions, as if they cover any and all beliefs on theology. At the very least, you're conflating ontological belief with epistemological belief: agnostics believe that we can't know whether gods exist, which is unrelated to whether they actually believe they exist. You can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.

Do you believe there's a God?

I've already given examples, but I'll give some more. A human species which was specially created, poofed out of existence as is ~6000 years ago. Or an ordered universe teeming with life on every level, instead of being precariously balanced on the thin skin of a single planet. A universe where God makes his existence obvious and undeniable (Romans 1:20 springs to mind), instead of remaining stubbornly hidden.
There are many ways in which God could make himself known. There are many ways in which the universe could show hallmarks of a Creator.

We could take your pro-God examples and use them as evidence against God. Anything God did, or could have done, can be used against Him.

If a Creation isn't a hallmark of a Creator, I don't know what could be.

Why?

It's just in the nature of the system, like how rejecting air, water and food will make this life worse. We were not made to be apart from God "for in Him we live, and move and have our being, as certain also of your own poets have said".

Which is just another way of saying that Christianity is the right religion. If that religion professes itself as a relationship with God, as servitude to God's will, as freedom from desire, or whatever, it's still a religion.

True.

Anyway, the point is that it doesn't explain why the non-believer must suffer. So what if he doesn't have the right relationship with God?

If you don't do the right things in this life you'll suffer and die - you have to drink water, eat food, keep clean, etc.

I think you're tying yourself in knots. First, science tells us why we make 'should' statements. It doesn't say that 'should' statements are inherently an illusion, or that there is no reality to morality. I mean, it's screamingly obvious to me that there is no objective morality, that 'should' statements are illusory; but that isn't a conclusion that the scientific method can make.

Second, the evolutionary explanation for morality just tells us how morality came to be. It doesn't say we should throw it out the window. It doesn't say we 'should' do anything at all.

Science tells us what is, not what ought to be.

The only way a "should" statement makes sense is if there is something which "should" be done. And I think that's shown not to be the case when you say genes are only following mutating instructions. I'm sure the instructions don't include an instruction that "these instructions should be followed".

Genes are just chemicals. They're quite literally as stupid as a rock. And I'm not sure where you got the idea that genes benefit from having fewer instances of themselves. The more there are of them, the more likely that one of their hosts will reproduce and pass them on.

Genes don't konw about other genes, nor do they care about them. They're chemicals. They're apparent selfishness is an anthropomorphisation of the population dynamics that emerges when you have a stable population of replicators whose characteristics are almost entirely determined by mutating instructions. They're apparent desire to preserve and proliferate instances of themselves arises from the fact that, if they didn't, they wouldn't proliferate themselves. Only those genes which code for their own survival are the ones that actually survive (with a few added caveats thrown in).

That example I gave about a burning building: say I pass by the building, and someone's inside screaming for help. This time there's no one else around outside, so I just take off and avoid helping. The next day I read that a person died in the fire. I'm the only person who knows that I could've tried to help, and I will feel tremendous guilt and shame. Do you attribute the guilt feeling to my genes? This would serve no purpose, after all, it's too late to do anything since the "other instances of my genes" are dead.

I never said it was the purpose. I'm saying that, by raising another human, the genes live on. Those whose code makes this process more likely to be successful are coding for the proliferation of other instances of themselves: after all, offspring share the genetic code of their parents. Thus, those genes which just so happen to improve the odds of reproduction (or, more generally, genetic proliferation) are the ones which continue to be extant in the population. Those which are detrimental are usually gradually selected out, since fewer and fewer individuals in the population have the detrimental gene.

There is no purpose to it, but, once again, it helps to use anthropomorphisms to explain things.

Before you accept God you'd like questions answered, and I feel the same about atheism. I'd like to know how the first molecule replicated - how was the first instruction carried out when there was no existing instruction? I'd like to know how the first bacteria ate food to survive, when it didn't know or care it was supposed to eat food, or that it was "supposed" to survive. If you don't like "Goddidit", how can you be so easily satisfied with "nothing-did-it" or "it-just-happened"?

And it does no good to talk around the problem by saying "well the ones that didn't do that didn't survive, so the ones that did had to have done it". That answer's worse than Goddidit.

And I wonder why it's so helpful to use anthropomorphisms? Maybe they mean more than we know.

You'd be surprised how little control we have over our actions and emotions, our desires and urges. Hunger and libido are two of the most powerful and hard-to-overcome urges we have. Try not eating for as long as possible, and see how long you can last before your 'free will' is co-opted by your body's self-preservation instincts.

I'm not a big believer in free will. We may have some concious decision, but rarely is it uninfluenced by our bodies surging hormones.

Well I think that's what I said in an earlier post: without Intelligence behind the universe, you're pretty much doomed to determinism. And determinism dooms the reasoning you use to dismiss Intelligence.

None. You're taking metaphor too literally - something you admonished Creationists for a few posts back .

But you're the one who said genes literally act this way. How can we talk about it - genes "want" life to continue, or they are "coded" for that to happen? It's not that I'm taking metaphors literally; you can eliminate the metaphors but the actions remain the same.

If that were true, you'd never see a moral relativist debate anything. The relativist acknowledges the arbitrariness of it all, but nonetheless believes in a particular moral code, and consider that code to be best.

Yes, thank God that relativists don't really believe what they say they believe.

Yes and no. Yes in that one's interpretation of quantum mechanical terms influences how you see reality (just what is the wavefunction, anyway?). No in that there are some quantum mechanical results that are true regardless of how you interpret them (the uncertainty principles, QM 'spin', tunnelling, entanglement, etc). I try to address the 'certain' aspects of QM, since they are the ones we can all agree on.

I snipped out the above back and forth about your OP because I think I've said all I can about it. At least two other Christians who seem to know something about QM have answered, and I don't know who is right, but my response just boils down to 1) there could be something wrong about your QM idea which you have no way of knowing at this time and 2) even if you're completely right, that may not be fatal to God's omniscience, especially since your idea of divine omniscience might not be exactly in line with Christian theology.

It probably boils down to semantics. What you consider 'purpose' is not what I consider 'purpose'... though I have to admit, I like the definition that purpose is 'the intent for which we were made'. It presupposes a Maker, but still, it's more coherent than most attempted definitions.

That said, I disagree that one's purpose is derived from the intent of those who made us. If my parents bore a child to carry on their family business, does that mean my purpose in life is to do just that? Purpose usually means some grand event that your life builds up to; toppling an evil regime, solving some intractable problem, or some such. I guess it's that which I disbelieve in.

Christians believe that if we only could see it, God's intent is the same as ours: for us to be happy. Sin is us trying to be happy in ways not intended, and which therefore cannot ultimately make us happy.

I also reject the idea that, just because God created the universe, he gets to decide what is Good and what is Evil. Who's he to say homosexuality is a sin?

I don't know how seriously you meant that, but I think you know we don't think God just decides upon good and evil. Evil is not just declared; evil is something broken or twisted, something being not what it should be.

I think you could guess my thoughts: it shows religion to be a cultural and neurological phenomenon, not one derived from divine intervention.

I'm sure divine intervention works through culture and neurology.

That no one has ever discovered Christianity or Islam or any other religion without first being exposed to it is telling.

I believe there are miraculous accounts of that (discovery without exposure) happening, but if you don't already trust Christianity I suppose you wouldn't trust the miraculous accounts.

We could talk about the importance of Apostolic Succession, or about Pentecost. Christ appointed 12 disciples and told them to go expose people to him, so that was the plan I guess. Just like the universe, the Church has a birthday; it began at a certain time and place and radiated outwards and forwards and backwards in time.

I'd wager that we're more happy now than we've ever been.

America is supposed to be a place where we have it pretty good, and from 1996 to 2005, antidepressant drug use doubled from 13 million to 27 million Americans. I guess it'd be silly to get into a contest trading anecdotal evidence, but I guess you're thinking in terms of freedoms and human rights maybe?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Do you believe there's a God?

No, and neither do I believe there isn't a God.

We could take your pro-God examples and use them as evidence against God. Anything God did, or could have done, can be used against Him.

How so? God walking among us is pretty hard to use as evidence against the existence of God. At best, you could (unreasonably) doubt that it is actually God.

If a Creation isn't a hallmark of a Creator, I don't know what could be.

Yes, but that's a tautology: Creation de dicto necessarily requires a Creator. It says nothing about whether such a Creation exists. If Creation is a hallmark of a Creator, what are the hallmarks of Creation?
And then there's questions about what kind of Creator, whether there's more than one, whether its a personal intelligence or an abstract force, etc.

It's just in the nature of the system, like how rejecting air, water and food will make this life worse. We were not made to be apart from God "for in Him we live, and move and have our being, as certain also of your own poets have said".

But since God created such a system, he made it possible for us to suffer. Why?

If you don't do the right things in this life you'll suffer and die - you have to drink water, eat food, keep clean, etc.

True, but again, this is only because God made it this way. He could have made it any way he wanted, so why did he make it such that we humans suffer eternally unless we have the right religion? It seems so arbitrarily cruel.

The only way a "should" statement makes sense is if there is something which "should" be done. And I think that's shown not to be the case when you say genes are only following mutating instructions. I'm sure the instructions don't include an instruction that "these instructions should be followed".

Naturally. Computer code doesn't say the program should do this; rather, it says it must do this. But genes, which must follow their code (barring corruption), can code for things which give their host feelings of 'should' and 'ought'. Such genes evolve because it is beneficial for the gene's continued proliferation.

That example I gave about a burning building: say I pass by the building, and someone's inside screaming for help. This time there's no one else around outside, so I just take off and avoid helping. The next day I read that a person died in the fire. I'm the only person who knows that I could've tried to help, and I will feel tremendous guilt and shame. Do you attribute the guilt feeling to my genes? This would serve no purpose, after all, it's too late to do anything since the "other instances of my genes" are dead.

Yes, I would attribute it to your genes, but I disagree that it would serve no purpose: by making you feel guilty (which is an unpleasant emotion), you are less likely to repeat your (in)action in the future. This is true regardless of the origin of morality.

Before you accept God you'd like questions answered, and I feel the same about atheism. I'd like to know how the first molecule replicated - how was the first instruction carried out when there was no existing instruction? I'd like to know how the first bacteria ate food to survive, when it didn't know or care it was supposed to eat food, or that it was "supposed" to survive. If you don't like "Goddidit", how can you be so easily satisfied with "nothing-did-it" or "it-just-happened"?

Because "it-just-happened" isn't our explanation. "A happened because of X, then B happened because of Y, then C happened because of Z". We say it happened spontaneously, but we don't leave it at that. Unlike "Goddidit", which posits nothing but a vague force to do the job, scientific theories are much more descriptive, predictive, and useful.
I can answer your questions, if you really want to know the answers. But I don't think they're on par with the objections to "Goddidit". They're not even objections at all; they're just questions about the details. The explanation can answer the questions, so all is well and good. But "Goddidit" cannot rise to the challenge, since it is so vapid that there is nothing to rise (or rather, it answers every possible objection with the same, empty response: "Goddidit").

And it's worth pointing out that none of those questions relate to atheism. They're problems with various scientific hypotheses, the belief in which is not a requirement to be an atheist.

And it does no good to talk around the problem by saying "well the ones that didn't do that didn't survive, so the ones that did had to have done it". That answer's worse than Goddidit.

Why?

Well I think that's what I said in an earlier post: without Intelligence behind the universe, you're pretty much doomed to determinism. And determinism dooms the reasoning you use to dismiss Intelligence.

Why are we doomed to determinism? Why does determinism doom reason? I'm not sure I follow.

But you're the one who said genes literally act this way. How can we talk about it - genes "want" life to continue, or they are "coded" for that to happen? It's not that I'm taking metaphors literally; you can eliminate the metaphors but the actions remain the same.

Indeed, but the nuance doesn't: saying genes 'want' to do something implies that they have some intelligence. They don't. Genes code for behaviour that improves their chances of proliferation, but they don't do so consciously. It's just an emergent feature of population dynamics.

Yes, thank God that relativists don't really believe what they say they believe.

Oh, we believe it. Unlike objectivists, we don't assert our moral code as The Moral Code. We know it's as arbitrary as anyone else's, but that doesn't mean we don't have one.

I snipped out the above back and forth about your OP because I think I've said all I can about it. At least two other Christians who seem to know something about QM have answered, and I don't know who is right, but my response just boils down to 1) there could be something wrong about your QM idea which you have no way of knowing at this time and 2) even if you're completely right, that may not be fatal to God's omniscience, especially since your idea of divine omniscience might not be exactly in line with Christian theology.

Fair enough.

Christians believe that if we only could see it, God's intent is the same as ours: for us to be happy. Sin is us trying to be happy in ways not intended, and which therefore cannot ultimately make us happy.

With all due respect, if God is trying to make us happy, he's sure doing a lousy job.

I don't know how seriously you meant that, but I think you know we don't think God just decides upon good and evil. Evil is not just declared; evil is something broken or twisted, something being not what it should be.

I was being quite serious. Who decides what something should be, what constitutes 'corruption'? God. Who set up the whole afterlife system? God. Who refuses to make his existence known, despite its profound consequences on our eternal life? God.

I'm sure divine intervention works through culture and neurology.

One wonders why a being capable of creating the universe, would resort to means which are indistinguishable from wholly mundane phenomena.

I believe there are miraculous accounts of that (discovery without exposure) happening, but if you don't already trust Christianity I suppose you wouldn't trust the miraculous accounts.

You know me well . I find that, if you did hard enough, such 'miracles' are nothing of the sort. Bleeding statues of Mary turn out to be hoaxes, ghosts are photoshopped in or are blemishes on the film, a blind girl who 'saw' a nuclear blast did no such thing, etc. Urban legends, unsubstantiated rumour, and elaborate pranks. These are the things miracles seem to be made of.

So forgive my scepticism .

We could talk about the importance of Apostolic Succession, or about Pentecost. Christ appointed 12 disciples and told them to go expose people to him, so that was the plan I guess. Just like the universe, the Church has a birthday; it began at a certain time and place and radiated outwards and forwards and backwards in time.

Could he not have done it himself? I think the Mormons are on to something: Jesus came to the Americas, because the natives wouldn't be 'exposed' to the Gospel.

America is supposed to be a place where we have it pretty good, and from 1996 to 2005, antidepressant drug use doubled from 13 million to 27 million Americans. I guess it'd be silly to get into a contest trading anecdotal evidence, but I guess you're thinking in terms of freedoms and human rights maybe?

Yes, but I was thinking more about how much better off we are compared to, say, the Middle Ages, or the Bronze Ages.

More prescriptions for antidepressants doesn't necessarily mean we're getting more depressed.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

MY BROTHER,

Well, yes, of course. However, for a Christian "Goddidit" is much more than an abstract metaphor--it is a "succinct explanation" of ALL Truth. The fact that atheists are unable or unwilling to accept this reality does not change the absolute reality of the statement one whit.

Indeed, but that's not the point. The fact remains that "Goddidit" only has the meaning it does to Christians because they presuppose quite a bit more than simply "Goddidit": they make the hidden assumption that, not only did some deity do it, but the Christian deity did it, as described by Genesis. It has meaning to them because they put more meaning into it than can be justified (ironically, "Goddidit" cannot be justified itself).

Nonetheless, even if you drape Christian overtones onto it, it still doesn't actually explain anything. All you've done is posit the exsitence of some 'do-er'. That you equate this 'do-er' with your god doesn't make it any more sensible, explanatory, predictive, or useful.

"Goddidit" can neither be proved or disproved by the so-called "scientific method"

Scientific method? There's no such thing, just as there's no Hindu religion.

so loved and worshipped by atheists

You mean you don't love it? Well, it's a good thing you eschew computers, medicines, cars, refridg- oh, wait, you don't. Funny, that. You lambaste atheists for 'worshipping' () the scientific method, when you yourself are just as dependant on it.

for the very reason that science, by its nature of being able to deal only with materialities,

I disagree that it can only look at 'materialities'. It can look at anything which can affect us. That's why neutrinos, which are stubbornly uninteractive with 'normal' matter, were ultimately discovered: they have a small, but detectable, influence on us. If God truely has an active influence in the world (or even just in the past), then he (or, at least, his divine intervention) is within the scope of science.

can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God and therefore a refusal to look beyond what science is capable of dealing with precludes--for those who desperately wish it so--the bother of having to deal with God's existence and the ramifications and responsibilities thereof. This, of course, is the ultimate misuse of science . . . but there it is.

How so? By your own admission, science is incapable of saying anything about God. So how can you admonish the scientist for not seeing proof or evidence of his existence? It's like condemning the 3D creature for not being able to think in 4D.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Indeed, but that's not the point. The fact remains that "Goddidit" only has the meaning it does to Christians because they presuppose quite a bit more than simply "Goddidit": they make the hidden assumption that, not only did some deity do it, but the Christian deity did it, as described by Genesis. It has meaning to them because they put more meaning into it than can be justified (ironically, "Goddidit" cannot be justified itself).

MY DEAR BROTHER,

There is, of course, only One God, and Christians have no more claim on Him than anyone else.

"Ironically, 'Goddidit' " is the only explanation for existence that can be justified given that the alternative is "Nuttundidit." If "Nuttundidit" than it didn't get done, we are not really here, and this conversation is therefore ludicrous--not to mention impossible. Sooooo . . . if you don't want to look stupid by talking to yourself--a self which doesn't exist anymore than i do under the rule of "Nuttundidit"--than i suggest that "Goddidit" is perhaps your best bet for looking sane--not to mention urbane, suave, and knowledgeable.

Nonetheless, even if you drape Christian overtones onto it, it still doesn't actually explain anything. All you've done is posit the exsitence of some 'do-er'. That you equate this 'do-er' with your god doesn't make it any more sensible, explanatory, predictive, or useful.

God is everyone's Abba. The only exclusivity involved is that some recognize this fact--while others can't--while others don't--while others won't.

Scientific method? There's no such thing, just as there's no Hindu religion.

Definitions of scientific method on the Web:

a method of investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the known data
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scientific_method

etc.

You mean you don't love it? Well, it's a good thing you eschew computers, medicines, cars, refridg- oh, wait, you don't. Funny, that. You lambaste atheists for 'worshipping' () the scientific method, when you yourself are just as dependant on it.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the Scientific Method. Mankind was given a brain so that he can investigate the created world around him and creating out of what God has provided those things you mention which none of us would want to try to do without.

The problem appears when the Scientific Method is misused in the vain--and desperate--attempt to twist and pervert that which deals strictly with the material universe into a tool to attempt to investigate the spiritual realm--from God on down to the souls of men.

This perversion of a valid and most valuable tool for material investigation and advancement into an ineffective and impotent tool for "spiritual investigation" is much like trying to weigh the wind or carbon-date a sunset.

I disagree that it can only look at 'materialities'. It can look at anything which can affect us. That's why neutrinos, which are stubbornly uninteractive with 'normal' matter, were ultimately discovered: they have a small, but detectable, influence on us. If God truely has an active influence in the world (or even just in the past), then he (or, at least, his divine intervention) is within the scope of science.

St. Paul would heartily agree: "Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--His eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse for their unbelief."(Romans 1:20)

As would King David: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world."(Psalm 19:1-4a)

How so? By your own admission, science is incapable of saying anything about God. So how can you admonish the scientist for not seeing proof or evidence of his existence? It's like condemning the 3D creature for not being able to think in 4D.

There is an old saying to the effect that for those who believe, there is evidence of God in everything; for those who choose to disbelieve, seeing the evidence becomes impossible.

i am sure that you are well aware that there are a multitude of books written by scientists regarding the scientific evidence for the existence of God. If not, below, although incomplete, is a good list to get you started:

Amazon.com: Spirituality books written by scientists

ENJOY!

WITH LOVE IN CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"Ironically, 'Goddidit' " is the only explanation for existence that can be justified given that the alternative is "Nuttundidit." If "Nuttundidit" than it didn't get done, we are not really here, and this conversation is therefore ludicrous--not to mention impossible. Sooooo . . . if you don't want to look stupid by talking to yourself--a self which doesn't exist anymore than i do under the rule of "Nuttundidit"--than i suggest that "Goddidit" is perhaps your best bet for looking sane--not to mention urbane, suave, and knowledgeable.

First, there are more explanations than "Goddidit" and "Nuttundidit" (unless you define 'God' as that thing which 'did it').
Second, "Nuttundidit" doesn't mean it didn't get done. In the absence of any thing (i.e., nothingness), things can still happen. It's counter-intuitive, but still true.
Third, the whole point of my previous post is that "Goddidit" isn't an explanation, since it doesn't actually explain anything. It just posits the existence of a thing which is capable of creating other things. It's just a placeholder name for whatever actually did it.

God is everyone's Abba. The only exclusivity involved is that some recognize this fact--while others can't--while others don't--while others won't.

From your point of view. From mine, I see many people believing in a myriad of different deities (you believe in the God of the Bible, Shaivites worship Shiva, etc), none of which are any more likely than the rest.

There may be one key to a door, but if everyone is shaking their own particular key at you, it's hard to find the key.

Definitions of scientific method on the Web:

a method of investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the known data
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scientific_method

etc.

They tell us what the method does, not how it does it. Have a proper read through of the same Wikipedia article you cited, and you'll see there are many different ways to do science, not all of them compatible.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the Scientific Method. Mankind was given a brain so that he can investigate the created world around him and creating out of what God has provided those things you mention which none of us would want to try to do without.

The problem appears when the Scientific Method is misused in the vain--and desperate--attempt to twist and pervert that which deals strictly with the material universe into a tool to attempt to investigate the spiritual realm--from God on down to the souls of men.

This perversion of a valid and most valuable tool for material investigation and advancement into an ineffective and impotent tool for "spiritual investigation" is much like trying to weigh the wind or carbon-date a sunset.

In what way is science ill-equipped to deal with the 'spiritual'? How, exactly, does the material world differ from the spiritual world? What determines whether something is 'material' or 'spiritual'? As I said before, science deals with anything that can influence us, even if its only indirect or potential.

In other words, it would seem that the 'spiritual' has absolutely no affect on us whatsoever, and may as well not exist. But I'd wager you think this 'spiritual' stuff really does have an affect on us, in some way or shape or form, so it does fall under the scope of science. Can't have it both ways.

St. Paul would heartily agree: "Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--His eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse for their unbelief."(Romans 1:20)

As would King David: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world."(Psalm 19:1-4a)

That's all very well and good, but it doesn't make it true. The Bible can say that God's existence is evident till its blue in its face (or rather, its leather-bound covers), but that doesn't make it true. I really don't see any evidence or reason to believe that God exists, let alone the Biblical God exists, despite what the Bible may say.

There is an old saying to the effect that for those who believe, there is evidence of God in everything; for those who choose to disbelieve, seeing the evidence becomes impossible.

Perhaps, but since most people don't choose disbelieve, your point is moot. And I don't put much truck in 'old sayings'; they only serve to reinforce the beliefs of those who say them, attack those who don't, and promulgate archaic stereotypes.

i am sure that you are well aware that there are a multitude of books written by scientists regarding the scientific evidence for the existence of God. If not, below, although incomplete, is a good list to get you started:

Amazon.com: Spirituality books written by scientists

And I'm sure you're aware of the number of Christians who have deconverted to atheism, or converted to Islam, or any number of other religions. Apostasy has lead to the idea of a True Christian™, which always makes me chuckle.

 

[Chesterton]

No, and neither do I believe there isn't a God.

That's what people have always called agnostic. Sometimes etymology is helpful, but it doesn't control here; usage does.

How so? God walking among us is pretty hard to use as evidence against the existence of God. At best, you could (unreasonably) doubt that it is actually God.

Well I was referring to the other examples; I'll agree with you on that one. (Although I've encountered people on here who flat out said that they would challenge God face to face. )

Yes, but that's a tautology: Creation de dicto necessarily requires a Creator. It says nothing about whether such a Creation exists. If Creation is a hallmark of a Creator, what are the hallmarks of Creation?
And then there's questions about what kind of Creator, whether there's more than one, whether its a personal intelligence or an abstract force, etc.

Okay, well, something happened. And I don't think you scientists can get around the metaphors of the universe being "created" or "formed" or "started" [to expand]. If you don't call it Creation, you have to call it creation. I guess the uppercase "C" is the difference between theists and atheists.

But since God created such a system, he made it possible for us to suffer. Why?

I don't think He "created a system"; it's just inherent in reality that if man is a product of God, and man rejects God, he cannot be happy. He's the source of our happiness, so asking to be happy without God is like asking to be warm without a source of heat; it's just not possible.

True, but again, this is only because God made it this way. He could have made it any way he wanted, so why did he make it such that we humans suffer eternally unless we have the right religion? It seems so arbitrarily cruel.

Perhaps He could have made it any way he wanted, but as you note in your OP, some things are mutually exclusive or contradictory even for omnipotence. Taking the Christian understanding of God, there are three things He could have done: 1) not created at all 2) created automatons or 3) create beings with wills who could freely join in a relationship of love with Him, at the risk that many or even most of these beings would reject Him and ultimately suffer for it. Weighing all considerations in the balance, the choice is His to make; you may question His decision; I don't.

Naturally. Computer code doesn't say the program should do this; rather, it says it must do this. But genes, which must follow their code (barring corruption), can code for things which give their host feelings of 'should' and 'ought'. Such genes evolve because it is beneficial for the gene's continued proliferation.

So genetic instruction is followed for the same reason that computer programming instruction is - external intelligence? Okay, I'm happy with that explanation; it's plausible and logical. I see no problem with it.

Yes, I would attribute it to your genes, but I disagree that it would serve no purpose: by making you feel guilty (which is an unpleasant emotion), you are less likely to repeat your (in)action in the future. This is true regardless of the origin of morality.

Do you realize what you're saying? You're assenting to some type of pantheism or animism. You might possibly remove all the metaphors, but what you're describing is matter having intelligence and will and purpose. You scientists certainly are a primitive, superstitous lot.

Because "it-just-happened" isn't our explanation. "A happened because of X, then B happened because of Y, then C happened because of Z". We say it happened spontaneously, but we don't leave it at that. Unlike "Goddidit", which posits nothing but a vague force to do the job, scientific theories are much more descriptive, predictive, and useful.
I can answer your questions, if you really want to know the answers. But I don't think they're on par with the objections to "Goddidit". They're not even objections at all; they're just questions about the details. The explanation can answer the questions, so all is well and good. But "Goddidit" cannot rise to the challenge, since it is so vapid that there is nothing to rise (or rather, it answers every possible objection with the same, empty response: "Goddidit").

And it's worth pointing out that none of those questions relate to atheism. They're problems with various scientific hypotheses, the belief in which is not a requirement to be an atheist.

But ultimately "it-just-is" has to be the atheist answer; there just aren't that many choices. There is a thinking mind behind the universe, or else there isn't, or else there's some vague, pantheistic combination of will and purpose without mind.

Why?

Because it's tautological. It's fallacious to say genes became coded for proliferation without intelligence because we know genes are coded for proliferation.

Why are we doomed to determinism? Why does determinism doom reason? I'm not sure I follow.

Because, starting with the Big Bang (or whatever the start was), everything is a result of a previous cause. Everything is another link in a chain of cause-and-effect. A leads B which leads to C and so on. Mindless physics and chemistry have to account for every thought you'll ever think exactly as they have to account for the Crab Nebula or a monkey.

Indeed, but the nuance doesn't: saying genes 'want' to do something implies that they have some intelligence. They don't. Genes code for behaviour that improves their chances of proliferation, but they don't do so consciously. It's just an emergent feature of population dynamics.

Oh, we believe it. Unlike objectivists, we don't assert our moral code as The Moral Code. We know it's as arbitrary as anyone else's, but that doesn't mean we don't have one.

But you said relativists can debate morality, so they must assert some point to debate. Are you saying that relativists are hypocrites?

With all due respect, if God is trying to make us happy, he's sure doing a lousy job.

He offers happiness, but he doesn't force it on us. Don't you think forced happiness would be a contradiction? It wouldn't be real happiness unless there was something for it to be opposed to, just as I'm not sure how we could experience light or warmth if there was no such thing as the absence of light or warmth.

I was being quite serious. Who decides what something should be, what constitutes 'corruption'? God. Who set up the whole afterlife system? God. Who refuses to make his existence known, despite its profound consequences on our eternal life? God.

God is good, and He makes or constitutes everything, therefore anything which is not according to His will is bad. Freedom of will is a positively good thing, but it allows for evil. And it wouldn't be good if it didn't allow for evil. Make any sense?

Some people, like me, think He has made His existence known.

One wonders why a being capable of creating the universe, would resort to means which are indistinguishable from wholly mundane phenomena.

Check the etymology - "mundane" means "of the universe or world". Of course He works through that which He created. And remember, God thinks "it's all good", as the kids say. This happens to be a sticking point between Traditionalists and Protesants; Traditionalists don't mind God working through the magic which we call mundane, whereas Protestants seem to demand some sort of magic above and beyond the magic which is reality.

You know me well . I find that, if you did hard enough, such 'miracles' are nothing of the sort. Bleeding statues of Mary turn out to be hoaxes, ghosts are photoshopped in or are blemishes on the film, a blind girl who 'saw' a nuclear blast did no such thing, etc. Urban legends, unsubstantiated rumour, and elaborate pranks. These are the things miracles seem to be made of.

So forgive my scepticism .

Until I see one of those miracle in person, I regard them the same as the claimed miracles of scientists, such as abiogenesis: I wasn't there to see it, so I don't know. Forgive my scepticism.

Could he not have done it himself? I think the Mormons are on to something: Jesus came to the Americas, because the natives wouldn't be 'exposed' to the Gospel.

Yes, I believe he could have done whatever he saw good to do, but since by all accounts he was better "man" than I, I prefer not to question what he chose to do.